get_committee_business_by_id

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return composition ('evidence calls and reports'), which is useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior on an invalid/unknown business_id, or rate limits. Notably it never mentions that show_on_website_only defaults to true, a behaviorally significant filter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then alternatives, then params. The only soft spot is the trailing 'Returns: Detailed information about the committee business', which largely restates the opening, but the definition is still tight overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description correctly avoids that. For a two-parameter read tool with one required ID this is largely sufficient, with the main gap being the undocumented default filtering behavior of show_on_website_only.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does define both parameters in plain language ('Committee business ID', 'Show only items visible on website'). However it adds no format, type, or edge-case meaning (e.g. that the boolean defaults to true and thereby filters results by default).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific committee business item') and narrows scope with 'inquiry details, investigation details', which separates it from the plural listing sibling get_committee_business. It is clear what it does, though 'committee business item' itself is a domain term the description never defines.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use when you need complete details about a specific inquiry or investigation,' and it names two siblings under 'See also'. It gives when-to-use but no when-not-to-use or routing rule for choosing among those alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.